Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012

"Gary Eickmeier" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:N8Cvs.388315$(E-Mail Removed)4...
> Probably very few here have your sensitivity, intelligence, and taste.
> Just give us our Instamatics and gruel and a flask and we're happy.


Which is fine, as long as you don't keep arguing that is all that should be
necessary for the rest of us too.

Trevor.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012

"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>>>If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
>>>>>work.
>>>>>In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
>>>>>white
>>>>>light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
>>>>>what
>>>>>the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what the
>>>>>light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both will
>>>>>confuse any AWB system.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
>>>>thousands
>>>>of
>>>>photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
>>>>quite
>>>>well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
>>>>colour's
>>>>of
>>>>surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
>>>>humans are
>>>>about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
>>>>values.
>>>>(Except for certain African's of course!)
>>>
>>> My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
>>> describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
>>> those days.

>>
>>How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had to
>>to
>>choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those days.
>>My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg myself,
>>but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.
>>

> I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
> to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
> camera had no ability to control colour balance.



Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.

Trevor.





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012

"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
> to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
> which most definitely provides the information he says that he
> requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
> acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
> I think he is a troll.


Well he already admits he is ignorant at least, and doesn't appear to want
to change that.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012
On 05/12/2012 05:36, Trevor wrote:
> "David Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:k9ci5o$e10$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> You're kidding right? A top end camera that does 14 bits RAW loses far
>>> more
>>> than 1.5 stops when saving to an 8 bit file! AND you don't have control
>>> over
>>> the default curve applied that stops you losing the full 6 stops!!!

>>
>> False, because the RAW has a linear encoding, and the JPEG a
>> gamma-corrected coding, meaning that is can represent light levels far
>> lower than 1/256 of the white value. It's /not/ a simple 8-bit versus
>> 14-bit comparison.

>
> Of course it is, any clipping and gamma curve that is applied by the camera
> (over which you have very little or no control) can also be applied to the
> RAW file with complete control in post. All captured data remains available
> in RAW for post processing in any way necessary for each individual image,
> but NOT in Jpeg.
>
> Trevor.


"All captured data remains available in RAW" - agreed with that, but not
agreed with the "full 6 stops [loss using JPEG]".
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
David Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012
On 05/12/2012 05:30, Trevor wrote:
> "David Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message

[]
>> The dynamic range of the 8-bit gamma-corrected JPEG is actually greater
>> than 12-14 bit RAW, but its precision is less.

>
> What a load of crap. Yes a default curve is applied in camera to save a
> little more than 8 stops, and thus reducing precision. However the dynamic
> range is also reduced or all photo's would look terribly flat and dull. With
> RAW you have the benefit of applying the exact curve and clipping points
> required for each particular image after the fact. Something you simply
> cannot do before OR after with in camera Jpeg.
>
> Trevor.


You only need to do the maths to see that what I said is true. It is
the loss of precision, not dynamic range, which is the problem for
JPEGs, although when you have cameras offering a greater resolution than
the viewer is observing the effects of precision loss are averaged and
may be rather less visible. E.g. smaller prints or photos for Web or TV
viewing - typically 10 Mpix cameras but a 2 Mpix display.

If you are viewing down to the pixel level (e.g. large prints) or need a
fair amount of exposure correction in post-processing, RAW will be the
best choice.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
 
Reply With Quote
 
Anthony Polson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012
Eric Stevens <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
>to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
>which most definitely provides the information he says that he
>requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
>acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.
>I think he is a troll.



No, he is not a troll, just stubbornly ignorant
and stubbornly proud of it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
John A.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-05-2012
On Sat, 01 Dec 2012 08:22:39 -0500, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 12/1/2012 12:41 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> "nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:301120122336432516%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> In article <j6fus.520024$(E-Mail Removed)4>, Gary Eickmeier
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> One major advantage of RAW, in addition to the previously mentioned
>>>>> ones,
>>>>> is that you can easily edit the RAW image, non-destructively.
>>>>
>>>> You can edit anything non-destructively. Keep trying.
>>>
>>> except that jpeg is already destructive.
>>>
>>> you can edit non-destructively from that point on, but you can't undo
>>> what was done to make the jpeg.

>>
>> Interesting you said that - I stumbled upon a function of Elements that
>> sorta converted any JPG into a RAW file and allowed you to edit it the same
>> as any RAW image. Do you know what I mean?
>>

>Any missing information from the JPEG, that is attempted to be
>reconstructed is, of necessity, through some interpolation algorithm. By
>definition interpolation is a guess. That's like saying after converting
>to an sRGB color space, you can convert back to RGB, or ProPhotoRGB.


For color space conversions it depends on how you do the conversion.

Also, it's when you convert from a wider gamut (like ProPhoto or
Adobe) to a narrower gamut (like sRGB) that you're doing
interpolation. For a given number of bits per pixel or color channel,
a narrower gamut color space will be able to resolve more colors in a
given color range than a wide gamut. It's analogous to taking pics
with the same lens on a full-frame and an APC-C with the same # of
megapixels on each sensor. The smaller one will cover a smaller field
of vision, but with finer detail within that region.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012

"Elliott Roper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:051220121605486991%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> I have several times attempted to draw the attention of the ignoramus
>> to http://www.slrlounge.com/raw-vs-jpeg...e-visual-guide
>> which most definitely provides the information he says that he
>> requires. However he steadfastly refuses to either look at it or
>> acknowledge that it provides the information that he says he requires.

>
> Thanks for that link. It was an interesting piece. I don't see the same
> 'flatness' in original RAWs that it shows. I'm using the same camera,
> but I'm using Apple's Aperture. I think what happens is that even for
> the 'original image' that Aperture displays, it is showing it with
> default "RAW fine tuning" adjustments already made.
> If I turn boost down to 0 in the RAW fine tuning, the adjusted version
> goes flat like the slrlounge article displays, but the "original image"
> stays very similar to the in-camera jpg.
>
> So I learned something from this discussion, even if it only why others
> were inexplicably preferring JPG and lamenting the tedium of processing
> RAW in post. Typical of Apple - "it just works".


As does ACR on Windows for me and many others.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012

"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 19:26:08 +1100, "Trevor" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"Eric Stevens" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>>>>>If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. AWB can't possibly
>>>>>>>work.
>>>>>>>In principle. It can't tell the difference between a pink shirt in
>>>>>>>white
>>>>>>>light and a white shirt in pink light. (More generally, it can't know
>>>>>>>what
>>>>>>>the subject/scene was supposed to look like, so it can't infer what
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>light source was. Are the walls off white or Wedgewood blue? Both
>>>>>>>will
>>>>>>>confuse any AWB system.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>You're a bit behind the times... my new Nikon has a data base of
>>>>>>thousands
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>photos which it uses to judge the exposure and colour... and it works
>>>>>>quite
>>>>>>well, thank you. For example, it can detect a face and judge the
>>>>>>colour's
>>>>>>of
>>>>>>surrounding objects as well, looking for colour castes. Note that all
>>>>>>humans are
>>>>>>about the same tint, mostly differing by saturation and brightness
>>>>>>values.
>>>>>>(Except for certain African's of course!)
>>>>>
>>>>> My F801s Nikon incorporated the ancestor of the technology you
>>>>> describe, back in the late 1980s. It was especially marvellous back in
>>>>> those days.
>>>>
>>>>How exactly did your F801s apply auto white balance to the film? I had
>>>>to
>>>>to
>>>>choose between daylight or tungsten film and use CC filters in those
>>>>days.
>>>>My darkroom color analyser did a fair job when printing color neg
>>>>myself,
>>>>but absolutely no match for todays DSLR's AWB.
>>>>
>>> I was referring to the "data base of thousands of photos which it uses
>>> to judge the exposure". I assumed that you would be aware that a film
>>> camera had no ability to control colour balance.

>>
>>
>>Of course I am, YOU were the one replying to a post about AWB.
>>

> Correction: I was replying to a PARAGRAPH about "exposure and color".



Yep, what you replied to was about AWB, and what you wrote was irrelevant.

> I presumed that most persons knew that a film camera has no ability to
> control colour balance and that the F801s could only control exposure.


Right, so why bother to write it in response to "AWB can't possibly
work...."

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Trevor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2012

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 01:48:42 -0500, "Gary Eickmeier"
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>
>>> The purpose of the 24/96 system is to aid in mixing multi-channel sound.
>>> If you
>>> want to mix down 2 tracks, for example, in 16/44 you would have to drop
>>> the
>>> levels by 3db. If you want more tracks, you have to cut even more, and
>>> since
>>> each bit represents 3db,


6dB actually. But don't forget each track you add also gives you 6dB more
level, so you lose no S/N by adding tracks *unless* they contain no signal.
The idea is to mute or "duck" the tracks where there is no signal.


>you eventually are left with 8 bit noisy crap!
>>
>>I don't get this Bob - what does the number of channels have to do with
>>bitrate for each channel?
>>

>
> I'm not referring to the bit RATE here, but the bit DEPTH... the 24
> compared to
> the 16...
>
> You can afford to drop 8 bits and still get a S/N of 96db.


Nope, since no 24 bit recorder actually does 24 bits (since you'd need
everything close to absolete zero temp to physically do so!)
A good 24 bit recorder does a maximum 18-20 bits real dynamic range (and
they are very close to what is physically possible without supercooling
now), giving you about 3 more bits to play with, which is still better than
not having it of course.

Trevor.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Pat McGroyn Digital Photography 8 11-27-2012 04:38 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 8 11-26-2012 12:13 PM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Anthony Polson Digital Photography 1 11-26-2012 05:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots Tim Conway Digital Photography 0 11-25-2012 09:47 AM
Re: Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots RichA Digital Photography 1 11-25-2012 09:28 AM



Advertisments